Israel Daily News Stream 03/05/2012

Welcome to all of the new readers of the IDNS, our daily roundup of everything you need to know about how the media is covering Israel, all in one place for easy reference, delivered directly to your inbox every morning. We are pleased to share our internal roundup with all of our reader.

Today’s top stories: Opinions differ over Obama’s speech at AIPAC Conference, reports of an Iranian nuclear test circulating, and journalists from Press TV charged with spying for having Israeli made medical supplies.

• Obama’s speech at the AIPAC Conference managed the tough trick of appealing to AIPAC officials and J-Street supporters.

Aipac leaders praised Mr. Obama for saying that he would not tolerate a nuclear Iran, and for explicitly ruling out a strategy of containment similar to the one used against the Soviet Union.

“The president said some welcome things today on Iran,” said Josh Block, a former Aipac spokesman, “including making clear that he has a policy of prevention, not containment, explicitly pointing to a military option, delivering an extended explanation of why it is in America’s interest to stop Iran, and in particular making explicitly clear that Israel has a sovereign right to defend themselves as they see fit.”

There was a sharply different reaction at J Street, a prominent pro-Israel lobbying group that is less hawkish. Daniel Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator, said Mr. Obama “gave the domestic and mainstream Israeli audiences what they wanted without giving Bibi what he wanted,” referring to Mr. Netanyahu’s nickname. “He refused to lie down for Bibi.

Obama was largely defensive in tone throughout the speech, declaring at one point that he had been with Israel at every critical junction so anyone who says differently doesn’t have the facts. He is hoping to get by with analysis of the problem (a nuclear-armed Iran would be very bad, he said), specifically rejecting containment as a strategy and leaving out large chunks of history (e.g., his failure to aid the Green Movement, his disastrous fetish with Israeli settlements that doomed the peace process).

But of course the real issues remain: 1) There is no evidence the Iran nuclear program has slowed because of sanctions (the reverse is true); 2) He actually seems to believe diplomacy is the only way to solve the Iranian threat; and 3) The timetable for sanctions and diplomacy to “work” will soon stretch beyond the time by which Israel must act in its own defense, leaving it dependent on U.S. action.

• Reuters says Netanyahu and Obama are “deeply at odds” over how much time is left to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power.

Even though Obama has offered assurances of stiffened U.S. resolve against Iran before the White House meeting, the two allies are still far apart on explicit nuclear “red lines” that Tehran must not be allowed to cross, and they have yet to agree on a time frame for when military action may be necessary.

• With the AIPAC Conference in full swing, it must be time for the annual Walt and Mearsheimer commentary. This year, the “Jewish Lobby” authors are vexed by the overemphasis on Iran when everyone knows the real issue of moment is the Palestinians.

• LA Times‘ Doyle McManus points out that Obama is taking a more hawkish position on Iran than any of his generals.

It’s hard to find a high-ranking U.S. military officer who thinks war with Iran is a good idea. They point out that it is unclear that bombing Iran would succeed in stopping the Islamic Republic from developing nuclear technology, and that an attack would almost surely provoke Iranian retaliation and touch off a longer, wider war.

• Jane Eisen in Comment is Free says Obama deftly silenced critics at AIPAC but probably fell short of satisfying the “right wing campaign” against him.

Obama stepped lightly in this speech, asking nothing of Israel except to tone down the rhetoric on Iran, never mentioning the previously contentious issue of settlement activities as a legitimate obstacle to peace. Even so, that won’t be enough for some American Jews, whose anxieties over Iran are being stoked by a well-funded, highly partisan rightwing campaign to discredit Obama more broadly.

• Avi Shlaim uses the occasion to unleash a torrent of hostility and outright hatred at Benjamin Netanyahu and, ultimately, the Jewish lobby. No single snippet would capture the misguided and revolting message here.

I read that some commentators are concerned because The Palestinian issue has been currently put aside. In truth the Arabs can care less about Palestinians. I rarely read about the way Palestinians are being treated in Lebanon and other Arab countries. It’s about time those those who believe in the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians is destructive should realize that Iran and other Arab Nations do not care about the Palestinians at all . If Iran were to drop an Atomic bomb on Israel a multitude of Palestinians will die a horrible death. The Iranian attitude is who cares about the Palestinian population as long as the main goal is to kill Jews.
Chaim Feifel

Israel must now realize that Obama wants to blame someone for starting hostilities. If he was successful in silencing AIPC concerns, Israel is now far less safe. The Nuclear timeline is the difference between safety or incineration for Israel. Obama is only concerned for Jewish votes.

Obama told Aipac that he’s got Israel’s back…for what purpose? to push around? to push forward and stay behind? to stab? or was it just a political correct way to say that he’s got Israel by the balls!

Do we Jews believe that we and Israel are the only problem President Obama has? We are one part! Both countries are involved in voting and eachone has priorities.
I wish there were similar leaders in the 1930’s and the Holocaust could have been avoided. But Hitler thought he could get away with his plans, and for a while he did. But look all the damage he caused : 6 million Jews and 5 million non Jews, soldiers by the millions as well. Plus cities destroyed on both sides.
This time, despite the Iranian retoric, they know as the Soviets knew, that if one missile originates in Iran Israel will “reciprocate” instantly. The Israeli know where and how to hit and it would not be necessarily by plane. In fact, this is a replica of: M.A.D. of the 1970’s.
Being a Holocaust survivor I can look at the situation a bit more rationally.
Tenpa.

What never fails to amaze me is how, in countries like England, ‘experts’ like Avi Shlaim can get themselves into print AND into positions where they can disseminate their cock-eyed ideals into fresh minds that should be taught the FACTS and be allowed to make up their own minds as to what and who is right or wrong.
Far greater minds than his have, historically and legally, shown that the Palestinian ‘problem’ has been brought about mainly by lies and deceit on the part of British politicians, World/UN opinion, and the likes of Arafat, who ended up making a fortune on the backs of his followers who, had they agreed to it in the first place, would have had their own country years ago!!!!!!!

I am very pleased that there are MPs in the British Parliament that are prepared to fight for Israel. Particularly Douglas Carswell. That is gratifying. i began to think that all MPs on both sies of the House of Commons were at best cool towards Israel, and at worst downright hostile. It is good to knoe where some of them stand and that they are the few people in British politics who are listening to be bit of sense!